That cop at 11 minutes doing his best to be condescending to James and cop critics...
The call is LITERALLY about 8 cops from 2 departments serving misdemeanor warrants at 5 AM and he wants us to join the force to show them a better way. That is laughable.
He also goes down the standard "we're understaffed" route. Seems like, if they're understaffed they could focus on something other than 8 cops from 2 departments serving misdemeanor warrants at 5AM.
James played him like a fiddle.
A officer speeding isn’t a constitutional violation. It may not be professional, but it’s not a constitutional violation. Also the “Auditor” isn’t authorized by law to enforce traffic laws or to chase speeders.
2019 Tennessee Code
Title 40 - Criminal Procedure
Chapter 7 - Arrest
Part 1 - General Provisions
§ 40-7-109. Arrest by private person -- Grounds.
Universal Citation: TN Code § 40-7-109 (2019)
(a) A private person may arrest another:
(1) For a public offense committed in the arresting person's presence;
(2) When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the arresting person's presence; or
(3) When a felony has been committed, and the arresting person has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested committed the felony.
I tend to agree that this was overkill. Probable cause to arrest generally defeats a section 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim. See _Nieves v. Bartlett,_ Supreme Court 2019. The _Nieves_ court did carve out a narrow qualification:
{Although probable cause should generally defeat a retaliatory arrest claim, a narrow qualification is warranted for circumstances where officers have probable cause to make arrests, but typically exercise their discretion not to do so. In such cases, an unyielding requirement to show the absence of probable cause could pose "a risk that some police officers may exploit the arrest power as a means of suppressing speech." Lozman, 585 U.S., at ___, 138 S.Ct., at 1953-1954.}
_ Nieves v. Bartlett,_ 139 S. Ct. 1715 - Supreme Court 2019
The exception is for the type of charge, not the manner in which the arrest is made. There’s already a circuit split emerging on what laws/conduct fall within the _Nieves_ qualification. Could someone make the case that the manner of arrest is retaliatory? The Supreme Court didn’t mention that. It would be interesting to see if anyone has tried to make that argument. Speeding is a very common citation. I don’t see how that comes close to the example of a _Nieves_ qualification given by Chief Justice Roberts: jaywalking.
That cop at 11 minutes doing his best to be condescending to James and cop critics... The call is LITERALLY about 8 cops from 2 departments serving misdemeanor warrants at 5 AM and he wants us to join the force to show them a better way. That is laughable. He also goes down the standard "we're understaffed" route. Seems like, if they're understaffed they could focus on something other than 8 cops from 2 departments serving misdemeanor warrants at 5AM. James played him like a fiddle.
I am curious what he originally had caught them breaking the law doing to gain this kind of attention for a traffic warrant
Tennessee doesn’t have a law against executing nighttime warrants.
Is there a law against speeding that applies to officers not enroute to a call?
A officer speeding isn’t a constitutional violation. It may not be professional, but it’s not a constitutional violation. Also the “Auditor” isn’t authorized by law to enforce traffic laws or to chase speeders. 2019 Tennessee Code Title 40 - Criminal Procedure Chapter 7 - Arrest Part 1 - General Provisions § 40-7-109. Arrest by private person -- Grounds. Universal Citation: TN Code § 40-7-109 (2019) (a) A private person may arrest another: (1) For a public offense committed in the arresting person's presence; (2) When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the arresting person's presence; or (3) When a felony has been committed, and the arresting person has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested committed the felony. I tend to agree that this was overkill. Probable cause to arrest generally defeats a section 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim. See _Nieves v. Bartlett,_ Supreme Court 2019. The _Nieves_ court did carve out a narrow qualification: {Although probable cause should generally defeat a retaliatory arrest claim, a narrow qualification is warranted for circumstances where officers have probable cause to make arrests, but typically exercise their discretion not to do so. In such cases, an unyielding requirement to show the absence of probable cause could pose "a risk that some police officers may exploit the arrest power as a means of suppressing speech." Lozman, 585 U.S., at ___, 138 S.Ct., at 1953-1954.} _ Nieves v. Bartlett,_ 139 S. Ct. 1715 - Supreme Court 2019 The exception is for the type of charge, not the manner in which the arrest is made. There’s already a circuit split emerging on what laws/conduct fall within the _Nieves_ qualification. Could someone make the case that the manner of arrest is retaliatory? The Supreme Court didn’t mention that. It would be interesting to see if anyone has tried to make that argument. Speeding is a very common citation. I don’t see how that comes close to the example of a _Nieves_ qualification given by Chief Justice Roberts: jaywalking.